Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: roscoe on February 14, 2019, 03:50:07 PM
-
My understanding of this incident is that Honorius speculated in private about a matter of dogma that had not been defined yet. For this he is charged w/ being a 'heretical' Pope( of which there is no such thing).
While reading the History Of Medieval Spain by J O'Callaghan I encountered the following on pg 81:
" When Pope Honorius exhorted the Spanish Bishops not to be lacking in diligence against the Juws,..... the Sixth Council Of Toledo informed the Pope that he need not be distressed about the efforts of the Spanish Bishops in the matter... :cheers:
-
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm)
Pope Honorius was condemned, not for having held or promoted a heresy, but for the sin of ommission, in not condeming error and not using his Petrine office to teach clear truth. One can draw many parallels between his actions and many popes in our century. Here is a listing of censures/rebukes he received for his non-action...all this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
----
In the thirteenth session, 28 March, the two letters of Sergius were condemned, and the council (Constantinople) added: "Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God", that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to the pious (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12748a.htm) and great emperor,
"and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary to our orthodox (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11330a.htm) faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm); and these we define to be subject to anathema (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm). And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) of elder Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm), be with them cast out of the holy Church of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), and be anathematized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm) with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm)".
The new pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), Leo II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09157a.htm), had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecuмenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) of the council itself: "We anathematize (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm) the inventors of the new error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm), that is, Theodore, Sergius, ...and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm), but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."
In Pope Leo II's letter to the Spanish King Erwig, he said: "And with them Honorius, who allowed the unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm), which he received from his predecessors, to be tarnished." To the Spanish (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14169b.htm) bishops (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) he explains his meaning: "With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm) teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence."
Pope Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm) anathematized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm) by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh and eighth ecuмenical councils without special remark; also in the oath (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11176a.htm) taken by every new pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: "Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ii, 9).
It is clear that no Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) has the right (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm) to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm), not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14571b.htm), who died in Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) communion, never having resisted the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10502a.htm), nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions.
-
V2 NA is about as reliable as Wikipedia. If Pope Honorius had been a heretic, some future Pope(whose Authority is higher than yours) would have declared him an anti-pope-- none has done so. :cheers:
% btw-- this is the first time I have heard of the 'Trulian' Synod
-
My understanding of this incident is that Honorius speculated in private about a matter of dogma that had not been defined yet. For this he is charged w/ being a 'heretical' Pope( of which there is no such thing).
While reading the History Of Medieval Spain by J O'Callaghan I encountered the following on pg 81:
" When Pope Honorius exhorted the Spanish Bishops not to be lacking in diligence against the Juws,..... the Sixth Council Of Toledo informed the Pope that he need not be distressed about the efforts of the Spanish Bishops in the matter... :cheers:
The synod of Trullo is only one of the councils that condemned Honorius as a heretic. He was also condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople, the Fourth Council of Constantinople and the Second Council of Nicea, which were all general councils of the Church.
And Honorius was not condemned for privately speculating about an undefined doctrine. He was condemned for what he wrote in two official letters to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, concerning matters of doctrine. Sergius wrote to the Pope with questions about doctrine, and the Pope responded. In one of the letters, Honorius said, “we acknowledge one will in Our Lord Jesus Christ” (Unde et unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostril Jesu Christi). Keep in mind that he wrote that during the height of the Monothelite heresy. Needless to say, the heretics jumped on that sentence. They used it to promote their heresy and prove that Honorius was in agreement with them. What did Honorius do? Instead of correcting them, as he should have, He imposed silence on St. Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was courageously defending the true doctrine of two wills in Christ, against the heretics. Honorius was condemned as a heretic because he deserved to be condemned as a heretic.
Listen to what Constantinople III says about these events and Honorius in particular:
“After we had read the doctrinal letters of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus or Phasis and to Pope Honorius, as well as the letter of the latter [Honorius] to Sergius, we find that these docuмents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, also to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers of repute, and follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of these men must also be expelled from the holy Church, namely, that of Sergius who first wrote on this impious doctrine; further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We anathematized them all. And along with them, it is our unanimous decree that there shall be expelled from the Church and anathematised, Honorius, formerly Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found in his letter to Sergius that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and the apostolic and patristic doctrines. Therefore we received it as useful to the Catholic and apostolic Church, and decreed that his name should be put upon the diptychs of the holy Church. (…) to Honorius the heretic, anathema!”
If anyone says Honorius was not a heretic, he is contradicting the express teaching of this general council and two others that taught the same.
Roscoe: “If Pope Honorius had been a heretic, some future Pope (whose Authority is higher than yours) would have declared him an anti-pope-- none has done so.”
That might be a doctrine of Roscoe, but it’s not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, had no problem admitting that Honorius may have been “altogether a heretic.”
"Under the ancient Law, the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested with the pontifical robe and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was." (The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306)
Roscoe: “For this he is charged w/ being a 'heretical' Pope (of which there is no such thing).
What do you mean “there is no such thing” as a heretical Pope? It's true that there’s never been a Pope who fell into heresy to the degree necessary for the Church to consider him a heretic, but that doesn’t mean there has never been a pope who fell into heresy, or that a pope cannot fall into heresy in the future (or the present). Even Bellarmine, who gave his best effort to excuse the Popes who were accused of heresy, did not rule out the possibility that some popes might have been heretics, but only said it could not be proven that any had fallen into heresy.
-
From St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, in "The History of Heresies and Their Refutation":
Not alone the heretical, but even some Catholic writers, have judged, from these expressions of Pope Honorius, that he fell into the Monothelite heresy; but they are certainly deceived;
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51924490_10156245039948691_41684487263748096_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=7df52de0b8744f387c256789a0259a85&oe=5CFAFE81)
We do not, by any means, deny that Honorius was in error, when he imposed silence on those who discussed the question of one or two wills in Christ, because when the matter in dispute is erroneous, it is only favouring error to impose silence. Wherever there is error it ought to be exposed and combated, and it was here that Honorius was wrong; but it is a fact beyond contradiction, that Honorius never fell into the Monothelite heresy.
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/52800510_10156245039963691_4366388242740674560_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=3a2d1599fd30eb8046ad6ac82d5b65eb&oe=5CE8A6AB)
-
M. Guerard Des Lauriers on the controversial case of Pope Honorius:
“If the inadvertence or casualness of Honorius I was real, then still it was only occasional; it did not exclude the habitual intention to serve the Good-End confided to the Church. This defection, if it really took place, did not deprive Honorius I of the Communication of the ‘being with’ proceeding from Christ which constituted him as Pope formaliter during his whole Pontificate. Whereas the defective behavior of Paul VI is numerous and convergent. Only this accuмulation permits, and sadly requires, to conclude that the current occupant of the Apostolic See does not have the habitual intention to realize the Good-End committed to the Church. Hence it follows that, to the contrary of Honorius, he is NOT Pope formaliter” (C.d.C., n° 1, p. 53, note 43).
-
The synod of Trullo is only one of the councils that condemned Honorius as a heretic. He was also condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople, the Fourth Council of Constantinople and the Second Council of Nicea, which were all general councils of the Church.
And Honorius was not condemned for privately speculating about an undefined doctrine. He was condemned for what he wrote in two official letters to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, concerning matters of doctrine. Sergius wrote to the Pope with questions about doctrine, and the Pope responded. In one of the letters, Honorius said, “we acknowledge one will in Our Lord Jesus Christ” (Unde et unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostril Jesu Christi). Keep in mind that he wrote that during the height of the Monothelite heresy. Needless to say, the heretics jumped on that sentence. They used it to promote their heresy and prove that Honorius was in agreement with them. What did Honorius do? Instead of correcting them, as he should have, He imposed silence on St. Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was courageously defending the true doctrine of two wills in Christ, against the heretics. Honorius was condemned as a heretic because he deserved to be condemned as a heretic.
Listen to what Constantinople III says about these events and Honorius in particular:
“After we had read the doctrinal letters of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus or Phasis and to Pope Honorius, as well as the letter of the latter [Honorius] to Sergius, we find that these docuмents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, also to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers of repute, and follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of these men must also be expelled from the holy Church, namely, that of Sergius who first wrote on this impious doctrine; further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We anathematized them all. And along with them, it is our unanimous decree that there shall be expelled from the Church and anathematised, Honorius, formerly Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found in his letter to Sergius that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and the apostolic and patristic doctrines. Therefore we received it as useful to the Catholic and apostolic Church, and decreed that his name should be put upon the diptychs of the holy Church. (…) to Honorius the heretic, anathema!”
If anyone says Honorius was not a heretic, he is contradicting the express teaching of this general council and two others that taught the same.
Roscoe: “If Pope Honorius had been a heretic, some future Pope (whose Authority is higher than yours) would have declared him an anti-pope-- none has done so.”
That might be a doctrine of Roscoe, but it’s not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, had no problem admitting that Honorius may have been “altogether a heretic.”
"Under the ancient Law, the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested with the pontifical robe and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was." (The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306)
Roscoe: “For this he is charged w/ being a 'heretical' Pope (of which there is no such thing).
What do you mean “there is no such thing” as a heretical Pope? It's true that there’s never been a Pope who fell into heresy to the degree necessary for the Church to consider him a heretic, but that doesn’t mean there has never been a pope who fell into heresy, or that a pope cannot fall into heresy in the future (or the present). Even Bellarmine, who gave his best effort to excuse the Popes who were accused of heresy, did not rule out the possibility that some popes might have been heretics, but only said it could not be proven that any had fallen into heresy.
:applause:
-
From St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, in "The History of Heresies and Their Refutation":
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51924490_10156245039948691_41684487263748096_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=7df52de0b8744f387c256789a0259a85&oe=5CFAFE81)
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/52800510_10156245039963691_4366388242740674560_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=3a2d1599fd30eb8046ad6ac82d5b65eb&oe=5CE8A6AB)
:applause:
-
Please note that I am only applauding the high level of argumentation by Roman Theo and Cantarella, and not taking either side.
-
Based on my reading of the facts, I do believe that Honorius was objectively heretical in some of his statements. Where there's doubt is regarding his pertinacity. Certainly the matter had not been explicitly defined by the Church at the time he wrote those things to Sergius. And the letter to Sergius does not meet the notes of infallibility, since it was not a teaching to the Universal Church deciding/imposing a matter of faith (it's very similar to some of those Pope Innocent letters cited incorrectly by St. Alphonsus as making the BoD de fide).
Some Church Fathers promoted opinions that were later explicitly condemned as heretical, but they're still listed among the catalog of saints.
Now, the Church's judgment that he was a heretic is in fact very strong, but again it doesn't strictly meet the notes of infallibility. And it's a bit problematic to "remove" from the Church someone who's already dead. If Honorius had been in heaven, a member of the Church Triumphant, would he be pulled out of there and thrown into hell by virtue of this declaration?
I don't believe that Honorius was guilty of pertinacious manifest heresy that would cause him to have lost the office, but I do believe he was materially heretical on the point, at least at on time during his reign.
-
Constantinople stated that they found the DOcuмENTS to be heretical, i.e. judged material/objective heresy to exist in them.
Then it stated that the NAMES of these heretics (including that of Honorius) should be "expelled from the Church". So when expelling Honorius, one could read that as "his name shall be mud". There's no way to expel someone from the Church if he's already dead.
-
Based on my reading of the facts, I do believe that Honorius was objectively heretical in some of his statements. Where there's doubt is regarding his pertinacity. Certainly the matter had not been explicitly defined by the Church at the time he wrote those things to Sergius. And the letter to Sergius does not meet the notes of infallibility, since it was not a teaching to the Universal Church deciding/imposing a matter of faith (it's very similar to some of those Pope Innocent letters cited incorrectly by St. Alphonsus as making the BoD de fide).
Some Church Fathers promoted opinions that were later explicitly condemned as heretical, but they're still listed among the catalog of saints.
Now, the Church's judgment that he was a heretic is in fact very strong, but again it doesn't strictly meet the notes of infallibility. And it's a bit problematic to "remove" from the Church someone who's already dead. If Honorius had been in heaven, a member of the Church Triumphant, would he be pulled out of there and thrown into hell by virtue of this declaration?
I don't believe that Honorius was guilty of pertinacious manifest heresy that would cause him to have lost the office, but I do believe he was materially heretical on the point, at least at on time during his reign.
This. It amazes me how some try to ignore the clear language of the councils declarations.
-
Holy Church has never declared Honorius to be an anti-pope. He was deceived as to what was really happening in Espana in an age when it took 3 months to get a letter to Rome & back. Why are so many so eager to find something wrong w/ the Pope? See Fr Parsons-- Studies In Church History v1 :cheers:
-
Holy Church has never declared Honorius to be an anti-pope. He was deceived as to what was really happening in Espana in an age when it took 3 months to get a letter to Rome & back. Why are so many so eager to find something wrong w/ the Pope? See Fr Parsons-- Studies In Church History v1 :cheers:
People are eager to find a precedent for today's crisis where we see Popes uttering heretical statements, and to see how the Church reacted to it.
You are correct that Honorius has not been declared an anti-pope. His DOcuмENTS were denounced as heretical, but there's no evidence of pertinacity in heresy. And III Constantinople removed his name from the Church. I suspect that the major practical effect of that is closing the door to a potential canonization of Honorius.
-
Just because a pope is a heretic doesn’t mean he’s an anti-pope. Too many people with an agenda (ie Fr Cekada) want to condone and lessen the evil that Honorius allowed. Heresy by omission is a serious dereliction of duty by a pope.
-
Just because a pope is a heretic doesn’t mean he’s an anti-pope. Too many people with an agenda (ie Fr Cekada) want to condone and lessen the evil that Honorius allowed. Heresy by omission is a serious dereliction of duty by a pope.
Well, both SVs and R&R cite Honorius. R&R will use Honorius as the case of a heretic who nevertheless remained Pope. SVs claim there was no heresy. I think it's clear, and it was determined to be the case by the Council, that Honorius did in fact make some materially/objective statements. I don't agree that this was a case of mere omission. That one author who claims that Honorius MEANT there was only one will in Jesus vis-a-vis his human nature is stretching greatly, and I do not find that assertion credible.
I do believe the he had fallen prey to monothelitism, but I don't believe that he was pertinacious about it, nor had it been explicitly condemned by the Church, nor did he teach it to the Universal Church as Church doctrine ... so it lacked the notes of infallibility. SVs have issues because they exaggerate the scope of infallibility to include even letters to individual bishops. R&R unduly minimize the scope of infallibility, claiming that the 99.5% of the Church Magisterium that lacks the formal notes of infallibility can go corrupt at any given time.
-
Just because a pope is a heretic doesn’t mean he’s an anti-pope. Too many people with an agenda (ie Fr Cekada) want to condone and lessen the evil that Honorius allowed. Heresy by omission is a serious dereliction of duty by a pope.
Sorry but my understanding is that cuм ex Apostolatus Officio says( in so many words) just that-- a heretical pope is an anti-pope... as there is NO SUCH THING as a heretical pope.. :cheers:
-
Well cuм Ex wasn’t around when Honorius was around so it doesn’t apply. The problem is you assume that the Church has “standard operating procedures” for when a pope turns bad. You think cuм Ex is an instruction manual that Catholics pull out to explain what to do next. This ain’t the case. The Church has never clarified any of this, which is why +Bellarmine and many other theologians debates for decades on what happens. And let’s not forget that +Bellarmine lived right after cuм Ex was made law, so he’d have all the opportunity to explain his theories based on this. Yet...we find in his writings that the issue of a heretical pope is NOT clear and the Church has NOT made definitive statements on the issue.
Thank goodness the sedes have it all figured out.
-
This. It amazes me how some try to ignore the clear language of the councils declarations.
LOL! Right. So, three General Councils are now in error in order to save one heretic. Why? Because the heretic was bishop of Rome. That's pretty funny when you think about it.
-
Sorry but my understanding is that cuм ex Apostolatus Officio says( in so many words) just that-- a heretical pope is an anti-pope... as there is NO SUCH THING as a heretical pope.. :cheers:
An anti-pope is not a heretic, or not necessarily. My understanding is that he is a non-pope, as in the time when there were supposedly three popes. Only one could be the pope. The others were anti-popes (non-popes) set up in opposition. Nothing to do with heresy.
-
I'll let someone else figure out what is wrong w/ above post b4 I reply.. :confused:
-
Well, sedeprivationism admirably addresses legitimate objections against both the SV and R&R positions. Or call it what you want. Father Chazal articulated a similar position, although he rejects the term. Point is, due to heresy and positive doubt, they lack formal authority, and yet nevertheless they remain in possession of their offices until determined otherwise by the Church.
-
An anti-pope is not a heretic, or not necessarily. My understanding is that he is a non-pope, as in the time when there were supposedly three popes. Only one could be the pope. The others were anti-popes (non-popes) set up in opposition. Nothing to do with heresy.
He didn't say an anti-Pope had to be a heretic(although knowingly denying the true Pope is heresy, I wonder though would that apply if the anti-Pope truly thought he was the real Pope?), but that a heretical "Pope" must be an anti-Pope.
-
An anti-pope is not a heretic, or not necessarily. My understanding is that he is a non-pope, as in the time when there were supposedly three popes. Only one could be the pope. The others were anti-popes (non-popes) set up in opposition. Nothing to do with heresy.
There are fundamental errors in the above response. I will reply if no one can figure it out within the next couple hours.. :cheers:
-
Sorry for the delayed response but your error is that the GWS Fr Popes are NOT anti-popes specifically because there was No heresy at the end of GWS. Pedro De Luna fell into heresy for a bit but he retracted.
See Attwaters Catholic Dictionary under antipope. Also see von Pastor( or is it Fr Parsons?) where it is disclosed that a compromise was reached at the end of the Schism wherein it was resolved Catholics are allowed to recognise either Fr or It series of Popes because there was no heresy. Additionally Pope Alex VI gives legitimacy to Fr pope Alex V by being numero VI. :cheers:
-
Sorry for the delayed response but your error is that the GWS Fr Popes are NOT anti-popes specifically because there was No heresy at the end of GWS. Pedro De Luna fell into heresy for a bit but he retracted.
See Attwaters Catholic Dictionary under antipope. Also see von Pastor( or is it Fr Parsons?) where it is disclosed that a compromise was reached at the end of the Schism wherein it was resolved Catholics are allowed to recognise either Fr or It series of Popes because there was no heresy. Additionally Pope Alex VI gives legitimacy to Fr pope Alex V by being numero VI. :cheers:
What do you mean by 'Fr'? I assumed it stood for French, meaning the Avignon line, but they were not accepted as valid. The Pisan line were the ones who agreed on the compromise with the Italian line and ended the Schism.
-
Sorry but the French Popes of GWS ARE valid. Alex VI tells us this by succeeding Alex V. The Avignon Popes are BEFORE GWS. GWS begins when Avignon Pope moves BACK to Rome. :cheers:
-
Sorry but the French Popes of GWS ARE valid. Alex VI tells us this by succeeding Alex V. The Avignon Popes are BEFORE GWS. GWS begins when Avignon Pope moves BACK to Rome. :cheers:
Alex V was a Pisan Pope.
:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
Sorry for the delayed response but your error is that the GWS Fr Popes are NOT anti-popes specifically because there was No heresy at the end of GWS. Pedro De Luna fell into heresy for a bit but he retracted.
But heresy is not essential to the definition of anti-pope; it's just a papal claimant who wasn't actually the pope. Perhaps it was due to contested election. I would imagine that one has to be of some prominence in order to receive the appellation, since I doubt that anyone would dignify Pope Michael I with the title of Antipope.
-
Roscoe has to equate anti-pope with heresy in order to add a “proof” to the sede list. Don’t think the Church has ever defined what an anti-pope is. So Roscoe and others, use faulty logic and private interpretation to back into a “certainty”.
-
Roscoe has to equate anti-pope with heresy in order to add a “proof” to the sede list. Don’t think the Church has ever defined what an anti-pope is. So Roscoe and others, use faulty logic and private interpretation to back into a “certainty”.
Roscoe is partially right. The Pisan line anti-Popes weren't ever defined as anti-Popes until the 20th century, and indeed Pope Alexander VI certainly regarded Pisan Pope Alexander V as having been valid. But he erroneously said it was the Avignon line that made the agreement with the Italian line, and erroneously said that Alexander V was part of that line. And then he had the cheek to downvote me for correcting him.
All that, after he so arrogantly boasted about being ready to correct another user for days and played games to see who could "spot" the error first.
-
Sorry but i have never given a 'downvote' to anyone as I don't participate in the thumbs feature... :sleep: & btw-- I am Not a 'sede' because there is no such thing...
Pls show where I have said that the 'Avignon line made an agreement w/ the Italian line" :confused:
Avignon popes were BEFORE Schism. French Popes of GWS begin when last Avignon Pope moves Back to Rome w/ help of St Catherine.
-
Sorry but i have never given a 'downvote' to anyone as I don't participate in the thumbs feature... :sleep: & btw-- I am Not a 'sede' because there is no such thing...
Pls show where I have said that the 'Avignon line made an agreement w/ the Italian line" :confused:
Avignon popes were BEFORE Schism. French Popes of GWS begin when last Avignon Pope moves Back to Rome w/ help of St Catherine.
The Avignon LINE of Popes. You're getting caught up in terminology to avoid admitting you were wrong. You do realise that Avignon is in France, yes? They also ruled from Avignon, which is why they're referred to as the Avignon claimants. They are sometimes(but less often) referred to as the "French claimants", as you did, because Avignon is IN FRANCE. If you're going to try and derail arguments with pedantry, at least make sure you're right first.
You said the French line, who were the Avignon Line(not the same thing as the prior Avignon Papacy, and that's obvious from context), made the agreement with the Italian line. They did not. The Pisan line did. You also claimed Alexander V was of the "French line", he was not. He was a Pisan claimant.
-
Roscoe is partially right. The Pisan line anti-Popes weren't ever defined as anti-Popes until the 20th century, and indeed Pope Alexander VI certainly regarded Pisan Pope Alexander V as having been valid. But he erroneously said it was the Avignon line that made the agreement with the Italian line, and erroneously said that Alexander V was part of that line. And then he had the cheek to downvote me for correcting him.
All that, after he so arrogantly boasted about being ready to correct another user for days and played games to see who could "spot" the error first.
Thanks for reply I have NOT used the term 'Avignon Line"... You did... Pls re-read topic.
My understanding is that the Italian line of Popes during GWS begin w/ Urban VI & the Popes recognised by the French begin w/ Clement VII. If you want to refer to them as 'Pisan', I have no problem with that.
At any rate the Pisan or French line of Popes are NOT anti-popes.
Attwater's Catholic Dictionary pg 26--" The Clementine Popes of GWS are Not called anti-popes because of the uncertainty of their status" Call them Clementine or French or Pisan-- they are the same thing.
Pls show 20th Century source that claims the 'Pisan' line of Popes are anti-popes. :chef:
-
But heresy is not essential to the definition of anti-pope; it's just a papal claimant who wasn't actually the pope. Perhaps it was due to contested election. I would imagine that one has to be of some prominence in order to receive the appellation, since I doubt that anyone would dignify Pope Michael I with the title of Antipope.
Heresy may not be an essential element for an anti-pope but a Pope that falls into heresy becomes one none the less. See cuм Apostolatus Bull of Pope Paul IV. :chef:
-
Vatican I council does define "Pope", does go over who were Anti-popes, according to the defining of infallibility. Cardinal Manning and Pope Leo XIII, IMO knew the must to have Vat. I council. Thank God they did!
-
Thanks for reply I have NOT used the term 'Avignon Line"... You did... Pls re-read topic.
My understanding is that the Italian line of Popes during GWS begin w/ Urban VI & the Popes recognised by the French begin w/ Clement VII. If you want to refer to them as 'Pisan', I have no problem with that.
At any rate the Pisan or French line of Popes are NOT anti-popes.
Attwater's Catholic Dictionary pg 26--" The Clementine Popes of GWS are Not called anti-popes because of the uncertainty of their status" Call them Clementine or French or Pisan-- they are the same thing.
Pls show 20th Century source that claims the 'Pisan' line of Popes are anti-popes. :chef:
The Pisan line is not the same thing as the French line, how many times must I say this?
The French line = the Avignon line. I never said you called them the Avignon line, but they are the exact same thing. They're called the French line because they reigned from Avignon, which is IN FRANCE, as you seem to be unaware. Again, you're trying to be painfully pedantic and STILL getting it wrong. Check your facts before correcting others.
The Pisan line was a third separate line of Popes caused by the Council of Pisa. It was the Pisan line, NOT THE FRENCH LINE, that made the compromise with Rome. You could confirm this with a two second Google search, instead of being obstinately and belligerently ignorant.
I could not possible make this any simpler if I tried.
-
St. Robert and St. Alphonsus are among the foremost experts on the Papacy and on Church History. Go with them, and you'll never fall into serious error, especially when they both clearly tell you the case of Pope Honorius has been abused by enemies of the Roman Church (such as the Greek Orthodox, also the Gallicans whom the Doctors controvert, and whose opinion Vatican I finally dogmatically rejected; it is a Greek Orthodox calumny and a Gallican slander that many Roman Pontiffs have allegedly been heretics, which modern neo-Gallicans have cheerfully adopted as their own calumny). No, the Roman Pontiffs, the Vicars of Christ, the Successors of St. Peter, can never become heretics, nor fail in the Faith, for the Lord has prayed and the Scripture has borne witness, that the Faith of Peter will never fail. Pope Honorius made a mistake, for he should have condemned the heresy and uprooted it. Two saints of the day were Pope St. Martin and St. Maximus of Constantinople, the Byzantine monk who was the Athanasius of the age against Monothelitism; the heretical Patriarch Phyrrus had tried to convince him, and been defeated. Thanks to him and to Pope St. Martin, a first victory over the heresy was won. St. Maximus had his tongue cut out by the imperial forces and was martyred.
1. St. Maximus: "they have not conformed to the sense of the Apostolic see, and what is laughable, or rather lamentable, as proving their ignorance, they have not hesitated to lie against the Apostolic see itself . . . but have claimed the great Honorius on their side. . . . What did the divine Honorius do, and after him the aged Severinus, and John who followed him? Yet further, what supplication has the blessed pope, who now sits, not made? Have not the whole East and West brought their tears, laments, obsecrations, deprecations, both before God in prayer and before men in their letters? If the Roman see recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God.... It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her — nay, to our Lord — by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy.... Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world — for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm
Fr. Butler's entry on Patriarch St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, who lived during this time, has more on the case of Pope Honorius, "He was no sooner established in his see, than he assembled a council of all the bishops of his patriarchate, in 634, to condemn the Monothelite heresy, and composed a synodal letter to explain and prove the Catholic faith. 'Finis excellent piece was confirmed in the sixth general council. St. Sophronius sent this learned epistle to pope Honorius and to Sergius. This latter had, by a crafty letter and captious expressions, persuaded pope Honorius to tolerate a silence as to one or two wills in Christ. It is evident from the most authentic monuments, that Honorius never assented to that error, but always adhered to the truth.[1] However, a silence was ill-timed, and though not so designed, might be deemed by some a kind of connivance, for a rising heresy seeks to carry on its work under ground without noise: it is a fire which spreads itself under cover. Sophronius, seeing the emperor and almost all the chief prelates of the East conspire against the truth, thought it his duty to defend it with the greater zeal. He took Stephen, bishop of Doria, the eldest of his suffragans, led him to Mount Calvary, and there adjured him by Him who was crucified on that place, and by the account which he should give him at the last day, "to go to the apostolic see, where are the foundations of the holy doctrine, and not to cease to pray till the holy persons there should examine and condemn the novelty." Stephen did so and stayed at Rome ten years, till he saw it condemned by pope Martin I. in the council of Lateran, in 649"
2. The dogmatic letter of Pope St. Agatho which was read at the Sixth Council, after which the Council Fathers said "Peter has spoken through Agatho" states, "For if anybody should mean a personal will, when in the holy Trinity there are said to be three Persons, it would be necessary that there should be asserted three personal wills, and three personal operations (which is absurd and truly profane). Since, as the truth of the Christian faith holds, the will is natural, where the one nature of the holy and inseparable Trinity is spoken of, it must be consistently understood that there is one natural will, and one natural operation. But when in truth we confess that in the one person of our Lord Jesus Christ the mediator between God and men, there are two natures (that is to say the divine and the human), even after his admirable union, just as we canonically confess the two natures of one and the same person, so too we confess his two natural wills and two natural operations ... because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecuмenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred. This is the living Tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds everywhere, which is chiefly to be loved and fostered, and is to be preached with confidence ... For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren. Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter's faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing" http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm
This is a dogmatic letter and it confirms Pope St. Agatho and the Sixth Council judged the Apostolic Church of Rome had never deviated from the path of Truth.
A Council must submit all its acts for confirmation to the Pope, as for e.g. Patriarch St. Anatolius of Constantinople did to Pope St. Leo I. The Roman Pontiffs (who were likely misled by forged acts anyway, as the Doctors tell us) did not accept it in the wrong sense of the Greeks and the Gallicans, but only in a much more limited manner, namely that Pope Honorius should have done his duty better. And it has been reversed now, in light of new evidence, and Pope St. Agatho's letter is right.
-
St. Robert and St. Alphonsus are among the foremost experts on the Papacy and on Church History. ...No, the Roman Pontiffs, the Vicars of Christ, the Successors of St. Peter, can never become heretics, nor fail in the Faith,
If St Robert Bellarmine, as an expert, said that the pope can never become a heretic (which he never argued as a certainty), then why did St Robert explain the steps that the Church can take to depose a heretic pope and further? Either 1) he contradicted himself, or 2) he's not an expert, or 3) your understanding of what he said is wrong. Hint: it's not #1 or #2.
-
If St Robert Bellarmine, as an expert, said that the pope can never become a heretic (which he never argued as a certainty), then why did St Robert explain the steps that the Church can take to depose a heretic pope and further? Either 1) he contradicted himself, or 2) he's not an expert, or 3) your understanding of what he said is wrong. Hint: it's not #1 or #2.
Yep, the answer is St. Bellarmine never argued such a thing. He said that was a belief OTHER PEOPLE had, and he argued against it.